Graduate Education Should Include Training
in Science Communication
Ardon Shorr, Jesse Dunietz, Adona Iosif, and Kirstin Early
April 15, 2013
ost people outside academia don’t understand what we do or why it matters.
Frustratingly little funding goes to research, and reading the newspaper shows blatant misunderstandings of science from public figures. Yet we are also to blame; we are
part of a community that de-emphasizes public communication. In order to secure our scientific future and create a more literate society, we must empower scientists to talk about
their work starting at the graduate level.
M
At best, talking to the public is other people’s job:
we rely on non-researchers to defend the scientific
enterprise from the nuisance of “little smatterers,” in
the words of Sir Isaac Newton. Talking to the public
is viewed not just neutrally but negatively – a futile
distraction from research. It would seem academia’s
ideal world is one in which the public trusts us, gives
us money, and doesn’t ask questions because they
won’t understand the answers.
This is not sustainable in a world that relies increasingly on science and technology – it is no longer
enough to do good work without explaining why
it matters. Science and the public need each other,
and that relationship requires a great deal of communication. Public perception of science impacts all
researchers, affecting our freedom to do our work, the
funding of our research, and the policies that shape
our world. When we stay silent on the sidelines, we
yield the conversation to those with the most money,
not the most information. That is a failure of our
responsibility as knowledge experts.
nition of what it means to be a scientist. Our vision
is to empower researchers to explain their work to
the public, policymakers, and their grandmothers.
We propose that graduate education
should include science communication
We propose that universities would establish centers
for science communication that offer classes, workshops, and practice opportunities. Students would
graduate with formal documentation of their studies
to present to future employers. Centers across the
country would share best practices at an annual conference. We are piloting these ideas at Carnegie Mellon University through a professional development
group called Public Communication for Researchers
(PCR). We work with journalists, professors, deans,
and other science communication programs to develop workshops and seminars on communicating
science. After a promising first year, we are now
writing a 5-year plan to propose to the university,
including a long-term curriculum. Some classes will
be taught as early as next fall. We hope our development process can serve as a model for programs
around the country.
Our own experience suggests that training in science communication has potential for success. Students vote with their feet, and our seminars are
attended by a mean of 43 graduate students from
across 17 STEM departments and all class years.
Several similar programs have gained traction across
the country, including the Center for Communicating
Science at Stony Brook and Washington University’s
Yet we can go through graduate school without Engage program. Their growth speaks to the viabiltaking a single class in science communication. Our ity of public communication programs in graduate
education does not prepare us for the evolving defi- education.
Public Communication for Researchers
Page 1 of 3
Public communication prepares us
to meet the modern challenges of
scientific careers
of rhetorical techniques to adapt a message to different audiences. Learning these techniques translates
to clearer academic writing and the ability to write
for a wider variety of contexts, both academic and
Incorporating communication in graduate educa- otherwise.
tion will make us better citizens, better scientists,
and better prepared for alternative career paths:
Communication training expands our role
as researchers
Communication training cultivates our
academic careers
Communication techniques cultivate our careers in
traditional settings: effective communication is necessary for publication, collaboration, and presenting
our work.
In addition to helping with traditional academic roles,
public communication helps us take on the changing
role of scientists in the 21st century. Researchers increasingly need to engage with the public to defend
research, muster support, and contribute to a culture of science literacy. We believe this is part of our
responsibility as researchers, can lead to new collaborations across fields and with industry, and improves
our ability to articulate the broader impacts of our
work.
Public communication skills improve scientific
presentations Scientists travel thousands of miles
to be introduced to ideas at conferences; it’s worth
investing the time to allow those ideas to cross the
last twenty feet. Public communication skills can
help: learning how to talk about our work on camera
translates to more engaging and fluent presentations. Communication training expands our
Likewise, improv techniques improve stage presence, career options
and learning to distill a message helps us prioritize
In an environment where tenure-track positions are
the bigger picture for interdisciplinary audiences.
increasingly scarce, our community must embrace
Public communication skills improve scientific non-academic careers. The fact that these careers are
writing Graduate training does not prepare us for deemed “alternative” belies a prevailing attitude that
the reality that a scientific career is a career in writing. professorships are the only legitimate outcome of a
Writing is an act of external cognition that trains Ph.D., and other career paths are deemed inferior.
our most fundamental scientific skills: systematic This attitude is to our detriment, and ignores the
thinking and the ability to structure an unstructured utility of these careers, their match to our skill-sets,
problem. More tangibly, our careers live and die by the economic reality, and what makes us happiest.
our ability to write persuasively about complex topIncorporating science communication into the
ics. In order to publish, Ph.D. students are expected
STEM curriculum expands our career options. First,
to write at a level competitive with established profesit makes it easier to move into lateral career paths
sors. No other institution expects novices to produce
such as science policy, journalism, media, public reexpert-level products without the benefit of experilations, and management. Second, as demand for
ence or formal instruction. Instead, we learn writing
public communication training increases, there will
through an apprenticeship model: students write inbe an increased demand for scientists well-versed in
dependently and receive limited feedback from PIs,
these skills.
which can feel like trial and error. What’s worse, PIs
are not trained to be teachers of writing. And since What skills do we need to explain
they write much more often than graduate students,
our work and why it matters?
they can develop “expert blind spots,” making it
Over the last year we’ve been developing and testeven harder for them to teach writing.
ing a curriculum to teach public communication. In
A more effective way to learn writing is by formal
collaboration with many science communication proinstruction. STEM programs must teach scientific
fessionals, including staff from the Carnegie Science
writing, not as an addendum, but as a fundamental
Center and Stony Brook’s Center for Communicating
part of the scientific process. Public communication
Science, we’ve converged on the following curriculum:
training can play an essential role in this instruction.
A key component of public communication is the use
Public Communication for Researchers
Page 2 of 3
Graduate students need training in adapting
science to public audiences
Most scientists communicate in a way that is ineffective outside academia. Academic audiences typically
share an interest in their work, share technical knowledge, and expect the speaker to be impersonal and
objective. None of these assumptions holds true for
public audiences. To reach the rest of the world, we
should incorporate the following components:
• Why the work is important
• Audience-appropriate language and
level of detail
• Specific and vivid examples, metaphors,
and images
• An emotionally compelling story
filters, scientists should be able to identify the values
of archetypal worldviews, and to talk about science
without threatening those worldviews.
***
We hope that by training the next generation of scientists to be proactive in talking about their work,
we can improve the trust, support, and funding for
research. We can empower the voting public as informed participants in policy debates. We can create
a culture that places more value on facts and data
and expects the same from its leaders. Most importantly, we can share the wonder and excitement of
discovery.
Aknowledgements
• A framing that affirms the values of the audience We are profoundly grateful to Judy Swan, Dan Kahan, Jennifer Briselli, the Yale Cultural Cognition
• Depiction of both the scientific process
project, John Radzilowicz at the Carnegie Science
and product
Center, Stony Brook’s Center for Communicating
Science, Liz Neeley at COMPASS, Emily Stark, Suzie
Graduate students need media training
Laurich-MacIntyre, The Eberly Center for Teaching
Television, newspaper, radio and podcasts are key Excellence, and Carnegie Mellon University for their
channels to explain why our work matters and to support, conversation, and fantastic work.
put a personal face to science. Interviewing requires
training at the graduate level, not the week after
our research falls under public scrutiny. Graduate
students should also learn how to attract the interest
of journalists in their work.
Graduate students need theater training
Theater games aren’t just for acting – they teach us
to stay authentic and personal when we’re behind
a podium. With effective improv training, graduate
students can reach their audiences by revealing the
human curiosity that brought them to their work,
without reducing the importance of evidence.
References
[1] Kahan, Dan M., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on
perceived climate change risks Nature Climate
Change. 2, 732-735
[2] Kahan, Dan M., et al. (2010). Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus Journal of Risk
Research. 14:2, 147-174
Graduate students need to understand why
their ideas may meet resistance
We often assume that those who deny science are
simply misinformed; if we could just explain the
facts clearly, everyone would think the way we do.
Unfortunately that’s not how science understanding
works. Research consistently shows that more information does not always persuade – it can polarize
people, depending on how that information threatens or affirms their values and group identity. [1]
What’s worse, people dismiss the expertise of those
who disagree with them. [2] To get through cultural
Public Communication for Researchers
Page 3 of 3